An excerpt from the Ruffed Grouse Society’s National Blog, for the full article, please click here.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) is working to better understand the impact of WNV on ruffed grouse populations in a study started in 2015, and RGS/AWS has been, and continues to be, a partner in this effort. PGC, with RGS/AWS support, sampled hunter-harvested grouse in the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 seasons.
WNV does not apply annual and steady pressure on grouse populations throughout their range, as risk to grouse fluctuates over time. In Pennsylvania, dramatic WNV peaks occurred from 2001 to 2004 and again from 2012 to 2014. WNV peaks are triggered by weather conditions, and the timing of peaks will vary in other states, regions and time periods. Pennsylvania’s population monitoring indicates that regions with high-quality and abundant habitat show a strong grouse population recovery between WNV peaks, and flush rate data from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan appears to support this connection.
These preliminary findings seem to make sense and reaffirm the crucial role habitat plays in bird health, disease resistance and population resilience. So what should we take away from all this? We, as hunters, should be disappointed that our Pennsylvania grouse season was cut short as PGC temporarily shortened the 2017-2018 season based on the effect of WNV. We should be even more disappointed because the lack of high-quality and abundant young forest habitat made grouse vulnerable to disease in many parts of Pennsylvania in the first place (where the ruffed grouse is the state bird!). In 2011, the PGC adopted a Ruffed Grouse Management Plan and, to their credit, some of it was implemented, however, given the grouse population’s response to WNV, partial implementation was not adequate. We must disrupt this status quo – the very same thing may happen all over again whenever the next disease or threat arises if we don’t stay focused on the bottom line now . . . young forest habitat.
We need to challenge our public land managers to stay focused on implementing their grouse and woodcock management plans, which call for scientifically sound active forest management that benefits many species of forest wildlife. Having a plan and failing to implement it is worse than not even having a plan at all.
A primary challenge faced by natural resource professionals today is to enhance the understanding of an increasingly nature-deficient public of the critical role played by disturbance in the conservation of wildlife. The public must be helped to better understand the very real consequences to wildlife from decisions to NOT impart a particular habitat management action on a particular landscape. The public must be helped to better understand that the long-term implications of inaction must be given equal consideration in decision-making processes to the potential short-term implications of action. The failure to compel this enhanced understanding will seriously compromise efforts to conserve game and nongame wildlife associated with habitats sustained only through periodic disturbance.